John Rawl’s Theory of Equality

John Rawl’s Theory of Equality

American philosopher John Rawls proposed that for a society to be completely equal, it must come from a mutual conception of justice. Accordingly, he argued that for this mutual conception to occur, everyone in that society must recede behind what he termed as the veil of ignorance (Sandel, 2011). Essentially, the veil of ignorance is when people become unmindful of various identifying factors about themselves and others. Such identifying factors include social status, race, religion, and ethnicity. The veil of ignorance then puts one in a neutral position by taking away people’s self-interested bargaining power and fashioning the most ideal societies regarding equality (Sandel, 2011). Rawls also explains that his theory is different from other moral theories like utilitarianism because the latter is consistent with the notion of totalitarianism of the majority over the minority.

In my perspective, Rawls’ idea of political neutrality cannot stand the test of practicality. This is mainly because he asks people to shed their identities when making decisions. Elements like religion are a huge part of people’s identities, for example, in Islam, where Islamic law is core in how a government administers. Secondly, the idea of ignoring these factors only promotes inequality. A perfect example is the SAT exams, which are all given out to students and have the same questions for every student, regardless of their religion, social status, ethnicity, and other factors. Research has shown that students from wealthy backgrounds perform much better than those from poor backgrounds (Byun & Park, 2012). This is because of various factors like the quality of education that both students get. While those from wealthy homes can afford private tutors, SAT preps, and study in good schools, those from underprivileged backgrounds have limited resources like overcrowding in classes, poor quality of education, and cannot afford SAT prep.

In conclusion, these factors show that the elements that Rawls points out to be the cause of inequality should, therefore, be ignored; they are the ones that should be addressed. By considering these factors, one can make favorable decisions for everyone and place everyone on an even playing field. As such, the veil of ignorance is not a suitable procedure concerning the principles of justice.

References

Byun, S. Y., & Park, H. (2012). The academic success of East Asian American youth: The role of shadow education. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 40-60.

Sandel, M. J. (2011). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? BUL Rev., 91, 1303.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Consider what Sandel says about virtue. Also, consider the theories of Kant and the utilitarians.

So now, what do you think about Rawls?

Is political ‘neutrality’ really possible? Is the ‘veil of ignorance’ the proper procedure to use when trying to figure out principles of justice?

Overall, what do you think about Rawls?